PhilArchive
open access
Gay Rights: Battling Homophobia
Three arguments summarize opposition to laws protecting LGBTQ+ persons from discrimination: (1) The pseudo-democratic argument (social change should be free of governmental coercion); (2) The clinical argument (homosexuality is an illness); (3) The choice argument (homosexuality is a choice). My purpose is to show the three are vulnerable to damaging objections. This article reflects conditions as they were in 1987 in the USA. For example, the expression LGBTQ+ had not been coined. My use of "gays and lesbians," then believed to be inclusive, excluded a lot of people.
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- Public Health, Political Solidarity, and the Ethics of Orientation Ascriptions#82883
- Gay Marriage: The Victory of Political Correctness and Bad Arguments#766904
- Precarity, ungrievability, and thinking beyond the law: a framework for understanding the position of LGB individuals in South Africa#728914
- Why Many Radical Rights Activists in the Present Day Cannot Achieve Their "Themes"#219663
- Teaching Tolerance of Sexual Orientation in Schools#350201
Record · ID 716238
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive